Oops, I keep editing posts by mistake rather than quoting :\ Post restored.

f I don't believe in a loving God, one that won't expel my 5yo neighbor from church because he's in a wheelchair, or my son, because he's an Aspie, then I cannot believe in God. I don't believe any power who is said to have created life would so willingly cast those aside who are not perfect.

Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries

They weren't expelled from the entire area, just prevented from going up to the altar, just like blemished animals couldn't be sacrificed on the altar. Similarly, the "unclean" had to stay outside the camp, but the priests still went out to take care of them, it's not like they were just kicked out and left to die because they weren't perfect.

But in any case, this was Old Testmant law, not New Testament, and most of it doesn't apply now that Jesus has arrived. Blood sacrifices, for instance, were an "image" of the coming sacrifice of Jesus, which is why everything involved had to be perfect.

t's not positive as in happy-rosy positive, but positive as in a positive direction. There's no retribution, no eye for an eye, everything is considered a teaching moment to help the child grow to adulthood. The entire outlook of discipline is changed to "what can we learn from this?" or "how can we stop the problem?" and looks toward treating the cause, not the symptoms, or if the child is too young, then using age appropriate methods that work with their limitations. It's hard to explain, but there's many books on it, including Christian ones like Grace Based Parenting. I wrote a short list that sums it up, too, that seems to explain more if anyone wants to read.

There's a big difference between random pain and/or suffering being applied whenever someone does something you don't like, and x penalty being assigned in advance for y offense, then enforced. The former has little or no positive effect, the latter is effective for training.

Theodore wrote:They weren't expelled from the entire area, just prevented from going up to the altar, just like blemished animals couldn't be sacrificed on the altar. Similarly, the "unclean" had to stay outside the camp, but the priests still went out to take care of them, it's not like they were just kicked out and left to die because they weren't perfect.

But in any case, this was Old Testmant law, not New Testament, and most of it doesn't apply now that Jesus has arrived. Blood sacrifices, for instance, were an "image" of the coming sacrifice of Jesus, which is why everything involved had to be perfect.

You cannot justify hatred and intolerance by qualifying it.

If you really look at the words of Jesus, no, he did not throw out the old testament. But of course you knew that - Leviticus is most often cited for being a reason to hate homosexuals and treat them as unequal people.

There's a big difference between random pain and/or suffering being applied whenever someone does something you don't like, and x penalty being assigned in advance for y offense, then enforced. The former has little or no positive effect, the latter is effective for training.

Random pain and suffering don't need to be applied, though, making it unnecessary and cruel. It is training in the sense of Pavlov's dogs, an unnatural reaction to an independent action, in an effort to "teach". I do think that humans are smarter than dogs, and as a result should be treated as such.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."
- M. MontessoriProud non-member of the HSLDA

Augustine and other theologians are famous for their quotation of what is right and wrong. Theologians and philosophers have often asked:

"Is it right and just therefore God does it or does God do something therefore it is just and right." The only rationale stance if you accept the Christian definition of God is the latter. Or, as Paul states, who are we to judge God? For if God is God then just and rightness is determined by God not by man or anything else. BTW, I contend that without God it is impossible to have any rational morals that are anything but made up.

Secondly, I never say to hate homosexuals and would condemn all such hatred. In fact, a friend of my wife announced several years ago that she was homosexual. When we did not show hatred but love toward her (but still believing it is wrong) she said she could not be friends and had hoped we would have severed ties rather than continuing the friendship.

Yet, there is a distinction between saying a person is a sinner for their sins and rejecting them as a person. I will agree. Yet, to disagree with God is another story.

Without God there is no rational morality. Nothing can be called right or wrong, only mere opinions of right and wrong.

THat is a summary of Christian ethics that I believe does extend throughout Christianity.

Secondly, I never say to hate homosexuals and would condemn all such hatred. In fact, a friend of my wife announced several years ago that she was homosexual. When we did not show hatred but love toward her (but still believing it is wrong) she said she could not be friends and had hoped we would have severed ties rather than continuing the friendship.

Hatred comes in all forms. How can you be on equal standing if you support a presidential candidate that won't give her the same basic rights you enjoy? How can you be friends, while supporting legislation that would have her kicked out of her workplace for being gay?

I don't know about you, but that is the very essence of hatred to me. You say one thing, but then you do all you can to show the opposite.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

also, I do not hate you. I do think you need a class in logic and rhetoric and probably a class in presuppositionalism, but I do not hate you. I am sure you are nice person and some things I agree with you on... like Math-U-See. We actually bought that curriculum as a supplement to Saxon and also because I think Math-U-See, like Saxon, is not the best in certain areas but in some areas it is the Best. They compliment each other well.

If you don't deny a person basic rights, then why support a presidental candidate that would deny them? Isn't it the same? Why don't gay people have the right to be married? I'm not talking about religious ceremonies, but a federal recognition that this is a union of two people, who are afforded the same tax benefits, the same rights in an emergency when their spouse is unable to make a decision, the right to be on each others insurance, the right to even know in medical situations what is happening to their partner. How can you deny that?

The HSLDA sent out a message a few months ago asking for people to write in against an anti-discrimination bill that would have made it illegal to fire/refuse to hire someone based on their sexual orientation (H.R. 2015). Do you support the HSLDA? Then you are supporting their efforts. And Huckabee voted against the anti-discrimination bill as well.

We cannot have equality if we continue to treat people as second class citizens based on who they love. It's not right.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

I am an member of HSLDA. I am also a Hispanic and outspoken on racial issues and I have been denied a job because of my race. So, this is important to me.

I do not believe, though, homosexuality should be a protected class. Why? When I was denied employment I did not sue nor wanted to file a discrimination lawsuit because here were my choices:

1. Proving this would be rather difficult if not impossible.
2. Why should I force someone who does not want to hire me to hire me? This, I believe, would be a great display of foolishness.

So, would I want to force anyone to hire someone who has a conviction of the like? No! Now, I have hired homosexuals and work for one. Yet, in a small business I do not believe a Christian who has convictions it is wrong should be forced to hire a homosexual. There would be situations in ministry and other situations where I believe hiring a homosexual would be a violation of my religious rights.

So, would you be for forcing an organization like HSLDA to hire a homosexual? Or require the Boyscouts to induct homosexuals. According to our Supremes, there is still freedom of association. I would not want the KKK to be forced to hire me or this business that I interviewed be forced to hire me.

Now "equality based on who you love" is not the issue. Let me explain. First, I do believe the Constitutional Rights we have does apply to all people. The right to speech, religion, bearing arms, etc... I would support for all people in our country. Yet, to force people to "love" others or "hire" people is beyond what I believe is covered in the Constitution. There is a "Freedom of Association" as has been defined by the Constitution and supported repeatedly over and over again. I believe homosexuals and their organizations should have the freedom to not hire me, a Christian who believes homosexuality is sin, and Christians who own a business should have that freedom as well.

If you really look at the words of Jesus, no, he did not throw out the old testament. But of course you knew that - Leviticus is most often cited for being a reason to hate homosexuals and treat them as unequal people.

I was referring to all the faith by works stuff - the rules and regulations for being a proper Jew. No need to make sacrifices any more when Jesus has already arrived.

If you don't deny a person basic rights, then why support a presidental candidate that would deny them? Isn't it the same? Why don't gay people have the right to be married? I'm not talking about religious ceremonies, but a federal recognition that this is a union of two people, who are afforded the same tax benefits, the same rights in an emergency when their spouse is unable to make a decision, the right to be on each others insurance, the right to even know in medical situations what is happening to their partner. How can you deny that?

My view is that any two people living together for more than x length of time should be able to apply for all that stuff. If you make it something that only gays can apply for, then you're basically subsidizing gayness, which doesn't even make sense from an amoral "benefit to society" viewpoint.

Or to put it in other words, if two brothers decide they want to live together to save money, why shouldn't they get exactly the same benefits as two gays? Since it's supposedly only a secular relationship and not marriage under another name, there's no reason to bar any two people from enjoying the same benefits.

Decrease: I agree, nobody should be forced to hire, or even serve (outside of basic necessities) anyone they don't want to. The whole idea of private ownership is that you have control, not the government (or random people trolling for lawsuit payouts). Given, if you accept government money, then you don't have that luxury any more.